The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mostlogical
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Murder is okay under all circumstances

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 100584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Con

I am challenging the user "mostlogical" to this debate one more time as I thought of other things I could argue which I failed to do so in the first debate. Here is the original debate: http://www.debate.org...


I would be grateful if they accepted this one more time.


I look forward to this debate one more time. If my opponent wants, they may copy and paste their arguments from the previous debate into this one. I would like them to post their arguments in round 1, and I will respond accordingly. To keep the number of rounds used for debate even between us, I would ask mostlogical to waive round 3, and just say in it something like "I waive this round as agreed upon".
mostlogical

Pro

I used to think that if I or anyone else were deliberately killed then a lot more people would be upset than happy, and also mistakenly thought that a loss of life is a bad thing because it means one less person in the world. A lot of people think like I did simply because it is comforting. However the truth is it doesn"t matter HOW a person dies, their organs will result in more life and happiness (unless a murderer completely destroys or hides a body - but that"s not the topic)

A man who was murdered saved 5 lives, his parents still back the organ donor register, they say "you"ve got to think about the positive impact it has for someone else". [1] The average organs per donor from a deceased person is 2.87 [4] An average organ donor provides 30.8 additional life-years distributed over an average of 2.9 organ transplant recipients. If all organs are used then 55.8 life-years are saved distributed over 6 recipients [5]

Despite advances in medicine and technology, and increased awareness of organ donation and transplantation, there continues to be a gap between supply and demand.[2]

And in China the need for organ transplants outpace the availability this is despite prisoners being suspected of being executed for their organs. [3]

In the U.K. the donation consent rate is 62% yet that is too low [4]

Since most people believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and murder has been saving lives, thus making more people happy as a result I conclude murder is okay or acceptable.

No-one would want to be murdered but no-one wants to die waiting for an organ either.

I look forward to your arguement

Sources:
[1] http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk...
[2] https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com...
[4] https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk...
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Con

Now, I would like to point out that my opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea of how organs of the victims of murder can be used to save the lives of more people.

Second, they are arguing murder is okay under all circumstances. All I need to do is point out one instance where murder is not okay.

Here is one:
Suppose a person murders another person and completely mutilates their organs, or otherwise uses a means of murder that makes the organs useless? How is this murder justifiable and okay when the body's remains can't be used to help save the lives of other people, and one life was taken away while no other lives are saved?

Even simpler: suppose the dead body is not found until way after the organs would no longer be usable? Was this murder justified?

I'll leave this round as is, as I believe what I pointed out is sufficient.
mostlogical

Pro

Though Con only has to prove an instance when murder is not okay, he has chosen to use some examples which in my opinion do not form part of the topic, they are when a murderer completely destroys or hides a body.

I think Con may be trying to connect murder with actions which are not okay. Mutilation and murder are two separate things, like rape and murder should also be treated as two different things.

When people allow their feelings to dictate their beliefs they often think if murder is okay then someone can rape a man or woman and get away with it, and wrongly conclude that murder is not okay for that reason. The truth is if it is okay to murder someone it doesn't make it okay to rape someone and vice versa. The two are not the same thing.

Yes, a baby might not survive if it were raped, and some people might believe such rapists are murderers but there is no reason to think they raped a baby with the intent of killing it. If someone does use murder to get away with something, it doesn't make murder wrong, the actions they are trying to get away with doing is probably wrong. Running away from problems or punishment is merely natural. Hiding a dead body of a person you've murdered is natural because murder is illegal i.e. punishable, so if murder were legal then people wouldn't go to such effort to hide a dead body, I think they would tell the right people so that the organs can be harvested and save lives.

I have proven that murder saves more lives and thus makes more people happier. There is no greater gift than life so why wouldn't murder be okay?

It doesn't matter if innocent people, scientists, McDonald employees or if prisoners are murdered, all lives are equally valuable, but the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few.

When someone agrees to donate their organs upon death they accept it is okay for their body to be mutilated too, most people including religious leaders agree with organ donation. Mutilating a living person is wrong though, however murder takes place the very moment someone dies and it is not necessary for someone to have all their organs etc destroyed in order to die, as life is fragile.

Con doesn't provide an example whereby someone could die by mutilation. So lets suppose someone traps someone in a car, and presses a button to crush that car into a cube, which makes their body completely unusable. Is murder okay in that instance?

Well, is it okay for rabbits to kill their babies? Is it okay for cats to kill mice or birds and leave them to rot? The answer is yes, because it is natural, they are following instincts and organisms can feed from the dead body. There are people who also believe that it is okay because those animals aren't intelligent, i.e. if you have intelligence then you should use it, and thus it isn't okay to not use your brain. However this logic is flawed. The intelligence of humans ranges a lot, and there are many people with mental illnesses. I would say that if someone did go to any length to kill someone by destroying their entire body they are either stupid or not well. Whose fault is that? Maybe the people who make crazy laws.

I will waiver the third round as agreed so we have an equal number of rounds to make arguements. I'd appreciate it if my points are countered.

Many thanks for challenging me
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Con

Murder still takes away a life, however, and there is no guarantee that because that person died, others can be saved through the donated organs. Again, there are also people who chose to opt out of being an organ donor, so their organs can't be donated.


My opponent seems to have argued that I tried connecting mutilation and murder, where they are two separate things. This is fair, but to be more fair, my opponent shoult NOT be connecting collecting the dead person's organs and murder. They are two separate things as well. My opponent's argument is that murder is okay because the person's organs can be used to save other people, well the part where someone takes their organs to save someone else is completely separate from the action of murdering someone too, just like mutilation is. Using their own logic, how can they then argue that murder is okay just because someone can use those organs? The actions are completely different. Either the examples I brought up work, and my opponent's argument works, or neither of ours does because it needs to follow the same logical argument of mutilation being separate from murder and harvesting the dead body's organs is separate from the murder.
mostlogical

Pro

"I waive this round as agreed upon".

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Also, would you donate an organ of you drank poison?
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I'm upset that they argued only around organ donation. Con argued that a person could be mutilated, therefore making the organs null. Pro said that's a different thing. Then, Con threw that same logic at Pro, saying the organ donation is null, as that's not murder. Because Con showed Pro's argument faulty, Con had no arguments. Con wins.

But you guys should've covered more murder situations. "Okay" usually means a net benefit, like if the murder is justified. That was never touched. Con also should've mentioned that murder isn't moral, as families will grieve over the loss of a member.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
#DawnsonBruno - you are contradicting yourself, you are saying it is okay to murder in some occasions and then say it is not justifiable EVER. Which one is it?

If it is acceptable to murder someone because your life is as valuable as theirs (one of you is going to die), surely it is okay to murder someone because the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few. Many people support the bombing of Japan, even though innocent lives were lost, because more lives are saved, that makes it justifiable!

More lives, and more human life years are gained by murdering someone hence why it is justifiable. It's true that someone's organs may not be useful if they are completely destroyed or hidden, but that is because murder is made illegal and so people are going to try to get away with being punished. The fact they do try to get away with being punished should show you that what they've done may not be wrong, and just natural like self defence etc. Murder occurs in nature all the time, why is it okay for animals but not humans? If murder were legal, then a lot more lives would be saved and more people would be happier.
Posted by DawsonBruno 1 year ago
DawsonBruno
Mostlogical's argument is complete crap. Murder, unless under self-defense or odd occasions like that, is not justifiable, EVER.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
Hi thanks for challenging me, I will be accepting once I rewrite my arguement and when I do I am happy to waive the last round so we have an equal number of rounds to make our arguement
No votes have been placed for this debate.